HISTORY 50: LIFE AND WORKS OF RIZAL1

For decades, the authenticity of Jose Rizal’s retraction documents has raised
issues, skepticism, and heated debates among those who seek to know the
truth regarding this controversy. However, the lack of evidence and different
statements by significant people involved have only contributed to the
complications and uncertainty which envelope this fiery argument.

"I retract with all my heart whatever in my words, writings, publications and conduct
have been contrary to my character as a son of the Catholic Church.",
this was the statement in the document which made the historians believed
that Rizal had retracted. However, there have been claims that the document,
as compared to the original file which was discovered by Fr. Manuel Garcia,
an archdiocese an archivist in 1935, was a forgery. Regardless of these claims,
there are several people who believe that the retraction documents are
authentic. These people include eleven eyewitnesses who were present when
Rizal wrote his retraction, signed a Catholic prayer book, recited Catholic
prayers, and the multitude who saw him kiss the crucifix before his execution.
Fr. Marciano Guzman, a great grandnephew of Rizal, cites that Rizal's 4
confessions were certified by 5 eyewitnesses, 10 qualified witnesses, 7
newspapers, and 12 historians and writers including Aglipayan bishops,
Masons and anti-clericals.

Because of what he sees as the strength these direct evidence has in the light
of the historical method, in contrast with merely circumstantial evidence, UP
professor emeritus of history Nicolas Zafra called the retraction "a plain
unadorned fact of history." Guzmán attributes the denial of retraction to"the
blatant disbelief and stubbornness" of some Masons.

REASONS FOR RETRACTION

1. Why would Jose Rizal write the retraction documents? What possible
reasons could have pushed Jose Rizal to write his retraction document,
assuming that he truly wrote the said document? The following four
reasons would have been worthy of his character and mentality.

2. To save his family and town from further persecution. Rizal may have
been told that he faced the dilemma of signing the retraction or of
having his relatives pursued by further persecutions. Since he hoped his
death would stop the persecution of his relatives, the retraction may
have seemed to him to be the only way of achieving that purpose.
 3. To give Josephine a legal status as his wife. Rizal, even though he for a
time suspected Josephine as a spy, seems to have become convinced
that she now loved him, and he may have desired to give her a legal
status in the eyes of the church, and so provide for her future. To secure
reforms from the Spanish government.

4. To help the church cut away from the disease which harmed her. Rizal
did not desire to injure the Roman Catholic Church, but to remove the
cancer which ruined both church and state in the Philippines -- friar
control of land and domination by the government. He was also
struggling for freedom of thought and of conscience to the individual.
He may have felt that much of his propaganda had produced the
insurrection, and have repented of that. His letter to Paciano, written
the night before his execution, supports that theory. It also had been
suggested that Rizal may have written the word "Catholic" in the broad
sense of the "Church Universal" as it is used by all branches of the
Christian Church excepting the Roman Catholics. All churches repeat, "I
believe in the Holy Catholic Church," in this broad sense.

MAJOR ARGUMENTS FOR THE RETRACTION

The argument between the original document and the released retraction
documents brought more controversy because this differs significantly from
the text found in the Jesuits. Which is really the
“original”?

Some of the significant differences between the copies of the Archbishop and
the Jesuits are the following:

(1) the Jesuits’ copies have “mi calidad” instead of “mi cualidad” from the
Archbishop’scopies,

(2) the word “Catolica” was omitted after the first “Iglesias in the Jesuits’
copies

(3) the word“misma” was added before the third “Iglesias” in the Jesuit’s
copies,

(4) the second paragraph from the archbishop’s copies started with the second
sentence, however, from the Jesuits’ copies it started until the fifth sentences,

(5) the Jesuits’ copies had 11 commas, the other had 4 only and
(6) the Jesuits’ copies did not have the names of the witnesses. These
arguments are further discussed below. Dr. Eugene A. Hessel in his
lecture given at Siliman University, summarizes the major points of argument
for the Retraction of Rizal as follows:
 The Retraction Document discovered in 1935 is considered the chief
witness to the reality of the retraction.
 The testimony of the press at the time of the event, of “eyewitnesses,”
and other “qualified witnesses,” i.e. those closely associated with the
events such as the head of the Jesuit order, the archbishop, etc.
 “Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity” reportedly recited and signed by Dr.
Rizal as attested by “witnesses” and a signed Prayer Book which
was amongst the documents discovered by
 Father Garcia along with the Retraction.

If true, Rizal would not only accept the general Roman Catholic teachings but
would agree to a number of beliefs which he had previously disclaimed.

According to the testimony of Father Balaguer, following the signing of the

Retraction a prayer book was offered to Rizal. “He took the prayer
book, read slowly those acts, accepted them, and took the pen and sad
‘Credo’ (I believe) he signed the acts with his name in the book itself.”

5. Acts of Piety performed by Rizal during his last hours as testified to by

“witnesses.”

6. His “Roman Catholic Marriage” to Josephine Bracken as attested to by

“witnesses.” There could be no marriage without a retraction.

CASES AGAINST THE RETRACTION

TION CONTROVERSY
1. The Retraction Document is said to be a forgery. There are four points
against the document itself.

First of all, there is the matter of the handwriting. To date, the only scientific
study criticizing the authenticity of the document was made by Dr. Ricardo R.
Pascual of the University of the Philippines shortly after the document
was found. Having some of Rizal’s writings dating from the last half of
December 1896 as his “standard”, he notes a number of variations with the
handwriting of the document, he further concluded that it was a “one-
man document” because of the similarities in several respects between the
body of the Retraction and the writing of all three signers: Rizal and the two
witnesses.

The only scholarly answer and criticism to Pascual is that given by Dr. José I.
Del Rosario. Rosario’s main criticism may be said to be that Pascual does not
include enough of Rizal’s writings by way of comparison and concluded that
the hand-writing is genuine.

2. A second argument directed against the authenticity of the document itself

is based on the principles of textual criticism. Several critics have noted
differences between the text of the document found in 1935 and other
versions of the Retraction including the one issued by Father Balaguer. To
date, from the morning of December 30, 1896 there have been, discounting
numerous minor variations, two distinct forms of the text with significant
differences with regards to the use of certain phrases within the document.

The usual explanation of these differences is that either Father Balaguer or

Father Pi made errors in preparing a copy of the original and these have been
transmitted from this earliest copy to others. Some have wondered if the
Retraction Document was fabricated from the “wrong” version of a retraction
statement issued by the religious authorities.

3. A third argument applies to the Retraction itself is that its content is in part
strangely worded, e.g. in the Catholic Religion “I wish to live and die,” yet
there was little time to live, and also Rizal’s claim that his retraction was
“spontaneous.

4. Finally, there is the “confession” of “the forger.” Antonio K. Abad tells how
on August 13, 1901 at a party at his ancestral home in San Isidro, Nueva Ecija
a certain Roman Roque told how he was employed by the Friars earlier that
same year to make several copies of a retraction document.2. The
second main line of argument against the Retraction is the claim that
other acts and facts do not fit well with the story of the Retraction. Those most
often referred to by writers as follows:

 The document of Retraction was not made public until 1935. Even
members of the family did not see it. It was said to be “lost.”
RETRACTION CONTROVERSY
 No effort was made to save Rizal from the death penalty after his signing
of the Retraction.

 The usual rebuttal is that Rizal’s death was due to political factors and
with this the religious authorities could not interfere.

 Rizal’s burial was kept secret; he was buried outside the inner wall of
the Paco cemetery; and the record of his burial was not placed on the
page for entries of Dec. 30th.

 There is no marriage certificate or public record of the marriage of Rizal

with Josephine Bracken.

 Rizal’s behavior as a whole during his last days at Fort Santiago and
during the last 24 hours in particular does not point to a conversion.

3. The third chief line of argument against the Retraction is that it is out of
character.

 Senator Rafael Palma, a former President of the University of the

Philippines and a prominent Mason, also argued that if Rizal retracted,
it would have been a very drastic change of character in Rizal which is
very hard to believe knowing how mature and strong in his beliefs Rizal
was. He called the retraction story a "pious fraud.”
CONCLUSION

To conclude, whether or not Jose Rizal retracted, the researchers believe that
the retraction document was more of Rizal taking a moral courage to recognize
his mistakes. Perhaps it may be true that he retracted and reverted to his
faith, but this does not diminish Rizal’s stature as a great hero with such
greatness.

As mentioned the documentary entitled “Ang Bayaning Third World”, Joel

Torre’s impersonation of Rizal told the time travelers that whether he retracted
or not, it does change what he has already done and what his writings have
already achieved. Furthermore, Senator Jose Diokno once stated, "Surely
whether Rizal died as a Catholic or an apostate adds or detracts nothing from
his greatness as a Filipino... Catholic or Mason, Rizal is still Rizal - the hero
who courted death 'to prove to those who deny our patriotism that we know
how to die for our duty and our beliefs.”

Sources:

Dr. Eugene A. Hessel. Rizal's Retraction: A Note on the

Debate.http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm

Did Rizal
Retract? http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Biography/man_and_martyr/chapter1
6.htm

http://nhcp.gov.ph/the-rizal-retraction-and-other-cases/

http://joserizal.nhcp.gov.ph/Reflections/retraction.htm

http://primacyofreason.blogspot.com/2013/06/jose-rizals-retraction-
controversy.html